Comments on: Is Paedocommunion a Step Towards Heresy or Orthodoxy? http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/ Reformation meets Rome Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:00:30 +0000 hourly 1 By: David Meyer http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-24031 David Meyer Wed, 07 Dec 2011 01:16:02 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-24031 The eastern rites of the Catholic Church practice it. Someone else can answer beter than I can, but I think of it like priestly celibacy, which is a discipline and not a rule. Until about a century ago the Latin Rite children had to wait until they were 13 or something, but a pope reduced the age to ~7 (accountability). P.S. to the crew here at CTC, this is the very article I stumbled upon early last year that led me to start readling this site. I was researching paedocommunion online. At the time, it was a big deal to me and I wanted to make sure my interpretation was correct on the topic. Now as a Catholic, I thank God every day that I no longer have to make those decisions. The Catholic Church has decided the issue of paedocommunion, and I have the honor of bending the knee to that decision. Anyway, thx to all of you guys that contribute to this site. I love you guys! The eastern rites of the Catholic Church practice it. Someone else can answer beter than I can, but I think of it like priestly celibacy, which is a discipline and not a rule. Until about a century ago the Latin Rite children had to wait until they were 13 or something, but a pope reduced the age to ~7 (accountability).

P.S. to the crew here at CTC, this is the very article I stumbled upon early last year that led me to start readling this site. I was researching paedocommunion online. At the time, it was a big deal to me and I wanted to make sure my interpretation was correct on the topic. Now as a Catholic, I thank God every day that I no longer have to make those decisions. The Catholic Church has decided the issue of paedocommunion, and I have the honor of bending the knee to that decision.
Anyway, thx to all of you guys that contribute to this site. I love you guys!

]]> By: Nelson http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-24029 Nelson Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:57:29 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-24029 Michael , I cannot answer your question regarding the EO church about paedocommunion, however according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia I have found the following: The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent. According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this sacrament. When may they be said to have attained the age of discretion? In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a certain stage in mental development, when children become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental veils. De Lugo (De Euch., disp. xiii, n. 36, Ben. XIV, De Syn., vii) says that if children are observed to assist at Mass with devotion and attention it is a sign that they are come to this discretion. NHU Michael ,

I cannot answer your question regarding the EO church about paedocommunion, however according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia I have found the following:
The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent. According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this sacrament. When may they be said to have attained the age of discretion? In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a certain stage in mental development, when children become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental veils. De Lugo (De Euch., disp. xiii, n. 36, Ben. XIV, De Syn., vii) says that if children are observed to assist at Mass with devotion and attention it is a sign that they are come to this discretion.

NHU

]]> By: Michael Lofton http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-24027 Michael Lofton Tue, 06 Dec 2011 21:56:04 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-24027 I know this isn't exactly on topic but are there Catholic churches that do practice paedocommunion? I read in one of the comments above that it is not necessarily condemned but are there any Catholic churches that do practice it? If not, why not? I'd also be curious to find out why the Orthodox still practice it but the Catholic church from what I can tell seems to have departed from that practice for the most part. I know this isn’t exactly on topic but are there Catholic churches that do practice paedocommunion? I read in one of the comments above that it is not necessarily condemned but are there any Catholic churches that do practice it? If not, why not? I’d also be curious to find out why the Orthodox still practice it but the Catholic church from what I can tell seems to have departed from that practice for the most part.

]]> By: Jonathan Deane http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-3655 Jonathan Deane Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:05:40 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-3655 Steve, Regarding your exegetical question, Exodus 12 does not say that if one's children ask about the significance of the Passover rite, that one would then explain and admit them to the table. It just explains the explaining, if you will. Your CREC friends would most likely respond in a similar manner. The point is this: we as Apostolic Christians do not center our decision making on our "take"/"perspective"/et cetera--we have a magisterium, whether in communion with the Petrine successor (Catholic) or in a conciliar view (Orthodox). With that being said, if you see my comments about Quam Singulari above, you will see that some Popes have pointed to our Eastern Brethren in trying to drive down the "normative" age for first communion. Regarding confirmation/chrismation, there is some diversity here in the Roman Catholic Church, but it would tend to be around the age of 13. The thought there is that as this is a sealing with the Spirit to gain strength to live the life of a martyr, one needs to enter adult life prepared. In terms of papal decrees/councils, I do not know that it is so clear. Because we as Catholics tolerate brethren who give this sacrament both at infancy and at age ~13, neither position has been judged, it would seem. But let's stay with the issue of unity-in the Presbyterian world, how is this issue handled when CREC brethren meet PCA brethren? If they cannot present their children to receive the bread and the wine, would they present themselves? I would imagine that the CREC would welcome any PCA member to commune, but that given this issue vice versa is true. Extending my thoughts beyond Presbyterianism, I know of one couple who attends a Reformed Baptist church and because of their infant baptisms (being raised in the OPC), they have been attending a church for years but cannot become members. It seems that their leaders are OK with giving the sacrament/symbol but not having these people in the rolls! It strikes me as especially odd/incongruous, as the ultimate question of whether these two are baptized is answered as a definitive "no" by these Baptist believers. This logical discord is what happens when people brandish forth their favorite proof texts and come down in judgment on those who don't agree-and it gets especially messy when those accused people have a proof text (or ten) that actually would seem to represent the opposite view. And thus we have the problem of authority presented before us. The faith was once and for all delivered, but to whom? Via the Scriptures? We would argue that this is not the (sole) case. When I reflect on these awkward moments, I hope and pray that it leads those involved to ask: is this what Christ wanted? New denominations based on the time of first baptism/communion? Further fragmentation of Christ's Body? May He make us one as He and His Father are one! Steve,
Regarding your exegetical question, Exodus 12 does not say that if one’s children ask about the significance of the Passover rite, that one would then explain and admit them to the table. It just explains the explaining, if you will. Your CREC friends would most likely respond in a similar manner. The point is this: we as Apostolic Christians do not center our decision making on our “take”/”perspective”/et cetera–we have a magisterium, whether in communion with the Petrine successor (Catholic) or in a conciliar view (Orthodox). With that being said, if you see my comments about Quam Singulari above, you will see that some Popes have pointed to our Eastern Brethren in trying to drive down the “normative” age for first communion. Regarding confirmation/chrismation, there is some diversity here in the Roman Catholic Church, but it would tend to be around the age of 13. The thought there is that as this is a sealing with the Spirit to gain strength to live the life of a martyr, one needs to enter adult life prepared. In terms of papal decrees/councils, I do not know that it is so clear. Because we as Catholics tolerate brethren who give this sacrament both at infancy and at age ~13, neither position has been judged, it would seem.

But let’s stay with the issue of unity-in the Presbyterian world, how is this issue handled when CREC brethren meet PCA brethren? If they cannot present their children to receive the bread and the wine, would they present themselves? I would imagine that the CREC would welcome any PCA member to commune, but that given this issue vice versa is true.

Extending my thoughts beyond Presbyterianism, I know of one couple who attends a Reformed Baptist church and because of their infant baptisms (being raised in the OPC), they have been attending a church for years but cannot become members. It seems that their leaders are OK with giving the sacrament/symbol but not having these people in the rolls! It strikes me as especially odd/incongruous, as the ultimate question of whether these two are baptized is answered as a definitive “no” by these Baptist believers.

This logical discord is what happens when people brandish forth their favorite proof texts and come down in judgment on those who don’t agree-and it gets especially messy when those accused people have a proof text (or ten) that actually would seem to represent the opposite view. And thus we have the problem of authority presented before us. The faith was once and for all delivered, but to whom? Via the Scriptures? We would argue that this is not the (sole) case.

When I reflect on these awkward moments, I hope and pray that it leads those involved to ask: is this what Christ wanted? New denominations based on the time of first baptism/communion? Further fragmentation of Christ’s Body? May He make us one as He and His Father are one!

]]> By: steve http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-3628 steve Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:00:33 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-3628 I have friends in the CREC and appreciate their fine biblical theologians, but i still do not hold the minority position within our Presby denomination. I am not strident against paedocommunion, but do not seek to practice it myself. The description of the passover meal (or the fellowship offering for that matter) do not grant us enough of a picture to project infants directly participating in the meal - small children more likely. For example, take the question asked in Ex 12:26. It is difficult imagining an infant posing the question. Unleavened bread (or meat in the case of the fellowship offering) would have been difficult to "process" and feed to infants as well. Regarding confirmation in the Latin church, is the age for that fixed, and how is that established? I have friends in the CREC and appreciate their fine biblical theologians, but i still do not hold the minority position within our Presby denomination. I am not strident against paedocommunion, but do not seek to practice it myself. The description of the passover meal (or the fellowship offering for that matter) do not grant us enough of a picture to project infants directly participating in the meal – small children more likely. For example, take the question asked in Ex 12:26. It is difficult imagining an infant posing the question. Unleavened bread (or meat in the case of the fellowship offering) would have been difficult to “process” and feed to infants as well. Regarding confirmation in the Latin church, is the age for that fixed, and how is that established?

]]> By: Luke Welch http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-3182 Luke Welch Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:19:50 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-3182 Jonathan, I am a big fan of the CREC. I go to an Anglican church plant (associated with Anglican Mission in the Americas): http://saintandrewsanglican.com (Baltimore/Annapolis) We are permitted to commune our children there. Grace and Peace, Luke Welch Jonathan,

I am a big fan of the CREC. I go to an Anglican church plant (associated with Anglican Mission in the Americas):
http://saintandrewsanglican.com (Baltimore/Annapolis)

We are permitted to commune our children there.

Grace and Peace,
Luke Welch

]]> By: Jonathan Deane http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-3073 Jonathan Deane Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:48:01 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-3073 Luke, Thanks for your comments. I guess the next question is that if these Scriptures are enough to convince others of the goodness of infant communion, why have the OPC and PCA rejected this view? Are you part of a smaller group like the CRE or do you hope for another denomination? I hope I'm getting where you're coming from. Blessings, Jonathan Luke,
Thanks for your comments. I guess the next question is that if these Scriptures are enough to convince others of the goodness of infant communion, why have the OPC and PCA rejected this view? Are you part of a smaller group like the CRE or do you hope for another denomination? I hope I’m getting where you’re coming from.

Blessings,
Jonathan

]]> By: Luke Welch http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-3060 Luke Welch Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:33:14 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-3060 Paul's argument against the Corinthians isn't based on solely the use of Passover. He is arguing that they had gross public sin and idolatry, and that if they remembered their Old Testament, God has always been harsh about this. "Examination" is an Old Testament doctrine in connection to God's feasts (Is 2, Hos 8-9). As to passover- If you check the context of the "unified body" passage with lasts from 1 Cor 10- 1 Cor 12, the threats Paul hopes to bring to mind come from identifying the Eucharist with ALL the Old Testament meals. In 1 Cor 10, Paul explicitly connects it to Manna and Quail, and to the Water from the Rock, and to the Peace offerings. ALL of those meals included children who were covenantally marked. In 1 Corinthians, Paul doesn't tell anyone NOT to eat. He tells EVERYONE to be repentant. But we don't expect children to NEED to repent of gross immorality or idol worship (unless their parents are taking them to it). The same passage tells us that God doesn't allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear, and that he always gives us a way out. We shouldn't hold children who aren't being tempted beyond a child's level to the measure of what an adult might be able to bear, and then imply that the child has no way out of the guilt. Our baptism is enough. The one bread indicates all the body by all the body eating one bread (1 Cor 10.17), and the whole baptized body is marked by spiritual drink (1 Cor 12.13). ---10.17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. ---12.13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. Blessings, Luke Welch Winepress Films Paul’s argument against the Corinthians isn’t based on solely the use of Passover. He is arguing that they had gross public sin and idolatry, and that if they remembered their Old Testament, God has always been harsh about this.

“Examination” is an Old Testament doctrine in connection to God’s feasts (Is 2, Hos 8-9).

As to passover- If you check the context of the “unified body” passage with lasts from 1 Cor 10- 1 Cor 12, the threats Paul hopes to bring to mind come from identifying the Eucharist with ALL the Old Testament meals.

In 1 Cor 10, Paul explicitly connects it to Manna and Quail, and to the Water from the Rock, and to the Peace offerings.

ALL of those meals included children who were covenantally marked.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul doesn’t tell anyone NOT to eat. He tells EVERYONE to be repentant. But we don’t expect children to NEED to repent of gross immorality or idol worship (unless their parents are taking them to it).

The same passage tells us that God doesn’t allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear, and that he always gives us a way out. We shouldn’t hold children who aren’t being tempted beyond a child’s level to the measure of what an adult might be able to bear, and then imply that the child has no way out of the guilt.

Our baptism is enough.

The one bread indicates all the body by all the body eating one bread (1 Cor 10.17), and the whole baptized body is marked by spiritual drink (1 Cor 12.13).

—10.17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
—12.13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

Blessings,
Luke Welch
Winepress Films

]]> By: Jonathan Deane http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-3054 Jonathan Deane Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:47:32 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-3054 Mark, See above for the link to Quam Singulari. Pope Pius X confirmed this part of it, which emphasizes that the Lateran Council and the Council of Trent were not going against infant communion, but merely saying that one must begin to receive communion no later than the age of reason. It was a move against those who not only wanted reason but "enough" reason to receive the holy Eucharist, thereby delaying the first reception even earlier than age 7. This is not to denigrate infant communion, but argue against adult communion. See here: This practice later died out in the Latin Church, and children were not permitted to approach the Holy Table until they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august Sacrament. This new practice, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran, in 1215, which promulgated its celebrated Canon XXI, whereby sacramental Confession and Holy Communion were made obligatory on the faithful after they had attained the use of reason, in these words: "All the faithful of both sexes shall, after reaching the years of discretion, make private confession of all their sins to their own priest at least once a year, and shall, according to their capacity, perform the enjoined penance; they shall also devoutly receive the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist at least at Easter time unless on the advice of their own priest, for some reasonable cause, it be deemed well to abstain for a while." The Council of Trent, in no way condemning the ancient practice of administering the Eucharist to children before they had attained the use of reason, confirmed the Decree of the Lateran Council and declared anathema those who held otherwise: "If anyone denies that each and all Christians of both sexes are bound, when they have attained the years of discretion, to receive Communion every year at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of Holy Mother Church, let him be anathema." With these things being said, this is getting away from the actual point of the article--the question raised is how development in Protestantism can occur on a principled basis. Blessings, Jonathan Mark,
See above for the link to Quam Singulari. Pope Pius X confirmed this part of it, which emphasizes that the Lateran Council and the Council of Trent were not going against infant communion, but merely saying that one must begin to receive communion no later than the age of reason. It was a move against those who not only wanted reason but “enough” reason to receive the holy Eucharist, thereby delaying the first reception even earlier than age 7. This is not to denigrate infant communion, but argue against adult communion.
See here:
This practice later died out in the Latin Church, and children were not permitted to approach the Holy Table until they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august Sacrament. This new practice, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran, in 1215, which promulgated its celebrated Canon XXI, whereby sacramental Confession and Holy Communion were made obligatory on the faithful after they had attained the use of reason, in these words: “All the faithful of both sexes shall, after reaching the years of discretion, make private confession of all their sins to their own priest at least once a year, and shall, according to their capacity, perform the enjoined penance; they shall also devoutly receive the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist at least at Easter time unless on the advice of their own priest, for some reasonable cause, it be deemed well to abstain for a while.”

The Council of Trent, in no way condemning the ancient practice of administering the Eucharist to children before they had attained the use of reason, confirmed the Decree of the Lateran Council and declared anathema those who held otherwise: “If anyone denies that each and all Christians of both sexes are bound, when they have attained the years of discretion, to receive Communion every year at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of Holy Mother Church, let him be anathema.”

With these things being said, this is getting away from the actual point of the article–the question raised is how development in Protestantism can occur on a principled basis.

Blessings,
Jonathan

]]> By: Mark http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/is-paedocommunion-a-step-towards-heresy-or-orthodoxy/comment-page-1/#comment-3053 Mark Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:41:11 +0000 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/?p=2523#comment-3053 I can understand how in the protestant faiths children may receive communion, when it is merely symbolic of unity with Christ and is no more sacramental than was the unleavened bread at Passover. In the Catholic Church, the understanding of the Eucharist is quite different, and therefore requires a different discipline. I have to disagree with Mr. Marshall on this, I don't think infants should receive the Eucharist, for the same reasons the Lateran Council and the Council at Trent proscribed against it; they lack reason and therefore cannot truly declare 'Amen' as an adult can in professing their faith that the Eucharist really is the Body and Blood of Christ. We Latins think that in this and other ways we have grown beyond our brothers in the Eastern Churches and that simply because there was an early practice does not mean it is necessarily the best practice-we've had 2,000 years to study the deposit of faith and hopefully in this and many other ways we've come to understand and practice it with greater precision. I can understand how in the protestant faiths children may receive communion, when it is merely symbolic of unity with Christ and is no more sacramental than was the unleavened bread at Passover.

In the Catholic Church, the understanding of the Eucharist is quite different, and therefore requires a different discipline. I have to disagree with Mr. Marshall on this, I don’t think infants should receive the Eucharist, for the same reasons the Lateran Council and the Council at Trent proscribed against it; they lack reason and therefore cannot truly declare ‘Amen’ as an adult can in professing their faith that the Eucharist really is the Body and Blood of Christ.

We Latins think that in this and other ways we have grown beyond our brothers in the Eastern Churches and that simply because there was an early practice does not mean it is necessarily the best practice-we’ve had 2,000 years to study the deposit of faith and hopefully in this and many other ways we’ve come to understand and practice it with greater precision.

]]>